Site Mobile Navigation

THE LAW; A New Role for Jeanine Pirro

IT would have been hard to miss Jeanine Pirro's appearance at the trial of her husband, Al, on federal tax-evasion and conspiracy charges last week. During his opening statement, Gus Newman, a defense lawyer, pointed Mrs. Pirro out to jurors, mentioned her role as the county's district attorney and a former county court judge, and later referred to her as the ''attractive lady'' in the front row.

The mere fact of Mrs. Pirro's presence occasioned some surprise. ''Think about how bizarre it is to have the D.A. of Westchester County sitting on the side of the defense,'' said Judd Burstein, a criminal defense lawyer at Burstein & McPherson in Manhattan. ''You'll never see this again in 100 years.''

But the real surprise to those in the legal community came when Mrs. Pirro attacked the prosecutors in the case, accusing them of a politically motivated effort to damage her reputation.

''It looks like they've investigated every aspect of my personal life, from the dates of birth of my children to who may have driven my daughter to school,'' she told reporters during a break in the trial. ''I think it's a desperate attempt by them to bring me in this wherever they can.''

Mrs. Pirro's appearance clearly serves the defense's purposes. ''Any criminal defense lawyer worth his salt wants to humanize the defendant,'' Mr. Burstein said. ''Having the defendant's wife there standing by is an important thing to see.''

This is particularly true in the Pirro trial, he added, which includes charges related to Mr. Pirro's failed effort to fight a paternity suit by an Indiana woman.

But Mrs. Pirro's celebrity adds a whole new ingredient, one that the defense clearly hopes will play to its advantage.

''In a typical case the jury looks out at the courtroom, and there's no way to know whether these are just spectators or relatives,'' said William Aronwald, a defense lawyer and former prosecutor. ''In this case they look out and see someone they know to be the district attorney, and probably voted for or against. The extent to which that could influence the jury is unprecedented.''

Geraldo Rivera, who counts Mrs. Pirro as a friend and has had her as a guest on his cable television talk show frequently over the past six years as an expert commentator on high-profile trials, said his own concerns about the power of celebrity had kept him from the trial.

''I was thinking the other day that I should go up and sit with Jeanine as a show of support,'' he said in a telephone interview. ''Then I thought, How will the judge respond, how will the jury respond, will I be accused of trying to influence the case in an extra-judicial way?''

One popular analogy is to Geraldine A. Ferraro, the former congresswoman and vice presidential candidate whose husband, John A. Zaccaro, was tried on extortion charges in the 1980's and acquitted. Ms. Ferraro also attacked her husband's prosecution as politically motivated. But unlike Ms. Ferraro, Mrs. Pirro is in law enforcement -- a prosecutor publicly attacking other prosecutors.

In addition to appearing in court, Mrs. Pirro spoke frequently to reporters covering the trial. As one midmorning break was announced, she beckoned to reporters on the press bench, and once in the hallway she drew their attention to a $10,000 bonus her husband had given one of his employees, which had been highlighted by Mr. Pirro's lead defense lawyer, Gus Newman. ''I'm not surprised,'' Mrs. Pirro said. ''He's the most generous man I know.''

AFTER sitting in the gallery during the first three days of the trial, Mrs. Pirro did not appear on the fourth, when her husband's paternity suit was being discussed. She returned Wednesday afternoon, as prosecution witnesses described purchases like furniture, rugs and an oil painting of the Pirros' children that were charged to Mr. Pirro's businesses.

Mr. Pirro, 52, and his brother Anthony G. Pirro, 45, are charged with illegally deducting more than $1 million in personal spending as business expenses. The brothers have blamed each other for accounting mistakes, but say their conduct was not criminal.

Although she has not been charged, Mrs. Pirro's name has come up in the trial in connection with a number of Mr. Pirro's purchases, including a Mercedes-Benz convertible he bought her and a $45,000 electronic fence for their home in Harrison.

It was this link that led Mrs. Pirro to accuse prosecutors of dragging her into the case, echoing her husband's claim that the trial is intended to damage her chances for higher political office.

Mrs. Pirro declined to comment on how her remarks might influence the case, as did a spokesman for the United States Attorney, Mary Jo White. When the trial resumed on Tuesday, however, after Mrs. Pirro's comments were publicized, Judge Barrington Parker warned jurors about ''media coverage over the weekend'' and reiterated that they should not be reading about the case.

Mr. Aronwald said that regardless of their effects on the jury, Mrs. Pirro's comments were inappropriate because they could undermine her ability to work with federal prosecutors on joint investigations.

''Making statements like this can only serve to undermine her credibility,'' Professor Gershman added. ''And prosecutors need above all else to preserve their credibility to be effective crime fighters.''

Moreover, Mrs. Pirro's comments border on hypocrisy, said Gerald B. Lefcourt, who has tried several cases against her and is past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

''The very things she is accusing the U.S. Attorney's office of,'' he said, ''are precisely the charges that have been leveled against her, as she has tried to raise her public image to run for higher office. She runs after every death penalty case. She tries to grab headlines, much the way Rudy Giuliani used to do.''

But Barry Scheck, a Cardozo Law School professor who has appeared on television with Ms. Pirro and argued cases against her, defended her right to discuss the case.

''I don't think there's anything ethically inappropriate about supporting her husband's position in a trial where she is under attack as well,'' he said. ''You have every right to support and speak out on behalf of your loved ones.''

Ultimately, the trial's outcome may determine just how appropriate Mrs. Pirro's response has been.

''In the event he's convicted, her criticism that the trial was politically motivated may backfire,'' said Kerry Lawrence, who was a federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York from 1988 to 1999. He added that the current United States attorney, Mary Jo White, was ''the least politically motivated prosecutor I have ever worked with.'' He served under four United States attorneys during his tenure.